First Epistle of John before John's Gospel?

[Aleph One]

Hello all. I'm keeping my first post to a question for more seasoned thinkers than I to answer (out of respect, and possibly not making a fool of myself straight off ). My only credentials are a lot of reading and lurking around concerning the current state of biblical scholarship.

I see Mr. Kirby's page on the First Epistle of John suggests it's well-agreed that 1 John postdates gJohn. I'm wondering if anyone here is familiar with Earl Doherty's argument for the Johannine Epistle(s) being John's Gospel's version of the Pauline Letters, where a non-historical Savior Christ, met only through revelation, has yet to be giving his earthly, historical form seen in the Gospels?

Here's a link Doherty's "Supplementary Article No. 2" (for The Jesus Puzzle) called "A Solution to the First Epistle of John": http://web.archive.org/web/200702030108 ... supp02.htm

I know some of his points there might not be well-enough supported, and his fIne-slicing of 1 John into layers and the communities that produced them may be a little much, but I have to admit that after reading his treatment, in the link above, John's First Epistle does sound a hell of a lot like the very early incorporeal savior cult theology of Paul.

Are there any obvious strikes against 1John before gJohn that mortally wound Doherty's scenario?

Thanks everyone for you time!
Aleph

[Bernard Muller]

I do not agree with Doherty for everything he wrote about the 1 John epistle, but I am almost certain that 1 John was written before the initial John's gospel, likely before gMark was known in the gJohn community.
It is all explained here, towards the end of the webpage:
http://historical-jesus.info/jnorig.html in/below "About authorship".

Cordially, Bernard

[John T]

"I'm wondering if anyone here is familiar with Earl Doherty's argument for the Johannine Epistle(s) being John's Gospel's version of the Pauline Letters, where a non-historical Savior Christ, met only through revelation, has yet to be giving his earthly, historical form seen in the Gospels?"...Aleph One

****************************************************

The writing styles of 1 John and the gospel of John contain similar terms for; life, light, Son, Spirit, word, etc. which support the claim both came from the same author.
As far a which one was written first, it doesn't change the obvious fact that Jesus was a real person.

"Irenaeus regarded the memory of Polycarp as a link to the apostolic past. He relates how and when he became a Christian, and in his letter to Florinus stated that he saw and heard Polycarp personally in lower Asia. In particular, he heard the account of Polycarp's discussion with John and with others who had seen Jesus. Irenaeus also reports that Polycarp was converted to Christianity by apostles, was consecrated a bishop, and communicated with many who had seen Jesus. He repeatedly emphasizes the very great age of Polycarp."...wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycarp

Bishop Polycarp of Smyrna was a disciple of John. John was a disciple of Jesus Christ.
The continued uninterrupted line of church leaders attesting to previous leaders is all the evidence one needs to know Doherty is living in a world of make-believe when he claims there was no real Jesus.

Both 1John 1:1-4 and the gospel of John 3:16-18 attest to a physical, earthly, real Jesus.

As for my opinion, both 1John and the gospel of John were written about the same time (85-90 A.D.) and it matters not which came first, for both attest to a real physical savior by the name of Jesus.

Sincerely,
John T

[Aleph One]

@Bernard and John T.

Thanks for your replies.

I can see we were thinking along similar lines, Bernard, with the pre gJohn/Synoptics feel of 1John. I agree that gJohn looks like that community's response to the Gospel trend that kicks off with Mark.

[TedM]

Hi Aleph, I wrote the following on this issue about 10 years ago, as a response to Earl's Doherty's Top 20 arguments from silence, which included some of his references to 1 John. I'm not interested in discussing it anymore, but you may find something in it to be useful..or not:

http://mypeoplepc.com/members/tedrika/d ... /id18.html

[Peter Kirby]

I see Mr. Kirby's page on the First Epistle of John suggests it's well-agreed that 1 John postdates gJohn.

I must have overstated the case, then. I believe there is room for disagreement.

Welcome to the forum!

[neilgodfrey]

Are there any obvious strikes against 1John before gJohn that mortally wound Doherty's scenario?

Udo Schnelle in The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings, dates 1 John earlier than the Gospel of John. Page 439:

1 John refers to no recognizable passage in the Gospel of John. It is engaged in a polemical debate with docetic false teachers, that come into view for the first time in 2 John 7. [Schnelle dates 2 and 3 John before 1 John]

The Gospel of John presupposes the current controversy with the docetic false teachers, and comprehensively works through the subject of the theological conflict associated with them.

J.V.M. Sturdy in Redrawing the Boundaries: The Date of Early Christian Literature, cites Perrin and Duling as dating 1 John before the Gospel of John (p. 83); Sturdy himself dates 1 John after the Gospel of John but before John 21.

[Peter Kirby]

My own view (which I have not developed, but which is not too distant from Bultmann's basic idea of the ecclesiastical redactor) is that the prologue to the Gospel of John (1:1-18, except verse 6), the interpolation/gloss of John 12:33, the interpolation/gloss of John 18:32, the redaction of 19:34, the interpolation of 19:35, the interpolation of 20:20-21a, the interpolation of 20:24-29, and the addition of John 21 have an anti-docetic context.

Since, on this hypothesis, the latest layer of the Gospel of John has an anti-docetic context, and because 1 John (and 2 John) also have an anti-docetic context, and because 1 John has a connection to the Gospel of John, I see 1 John as being later than the pre-redaction Gospel of John, although it may be earlier than some of the redaction.